opening statements - NYCOURTS.GOV · Image of court scene, from a book by Hugo Grotius. Inleidinge tot de Inleidinge tot de Hollandsche rechts-geleerdheid / beschreven bij Hugo de

Opening Statements

© 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany

Mural painted by Attilio Pusterla (1862–1941) in the ceremonial courtroom in the New York County

Courthouse at 60 Centre Street, as photographed by Teodors Ermansons.


edited byAlbert M. Rosenblatt and Julia C. Rosenblatt

Law, Jurisprudence, and the Legacy of Dutch New York

Opening Statements

�

eean imprint of state university of new york press

excelsior editionsTHE HISTORICAL SOCIETY of the

COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKand


Published by State University of New York Press, Albany

© 2013 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoeverwithout written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system

or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic,magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise

without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.

Excelsior Editions is an imprint of State University of New York Press

For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NYwww.sunypress.edu

Production and book design, Laurie SearlMarketing, Kate McDonnell

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Opening statements : law, jurisprudence, and the legacy of Dutch New York / Edited by Albert M. Rosenblatt and Julia C. Rosenblatt.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-4384-4657-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Law—New York (State)—History. 2. New York (State)—History—Colonial period, ca. 1600–1775. 3. Dutch—New York (State)—History—17th century. I. Rosenblatt, Albert M. II. Rosenblatt, Julia C. KFN5078.O64 2012 349.74709’032—dc23 2012023547

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


To the scholars who for decades unearthed and studied New Netherland

history, enabling today’s historians and commentators to expand upon the

earlier writings and present fresh insights to a receptive public.



List of Illustrations ix

Acknowledgments with Thanks xix

Acknowledgments of Previous or Prospective Appearances xxi

Foreword xxiii William J. vanden Heuvel

Introduction 1 Albert M. Rosenblatt and Julia C. Rosenblatt

Chapter One“…a well regulated country where justice and government prevail” 11 Martha Dickinson Shattuck

Chapter Two The Souls of New Amsterdam’s African American Children 27 Joyce D. Goodfriend

Chapter ThreeMatters of “Trifling Moment”: New Netherland and the New York Tradition of Arbitration 37 Troy A. McKenzie and Wilson C. Freeman

Chapter FourThe Declaration of Independence and the Dutch Legacy 55 Wijnand W. Mijnhardt

Contents


viii � Contents

Chapter FiveReal Estate or Political Sovereignty? The Dutch, Munsees, and the Purchase of Manhattan Island 67 Paul Otto

Chapter SixCrimen Læsæ Maiestatis or Abuse of Power? The 1647 Trial of Cornelis Melijn and Jochem Pietersz Kuijter 83 Jaap Jacobs

Chapter SevenImagining the Stadt Huys 105 Diana diZerega Wall and Anne-Marie Cantwell

Chapter EightProsecution or Persecution? The 1657 Flushing Incident 117 Charles Gehring

Chapter NineLutherans and the Law in New Netherland: The Politics of Religion 127 Peter R. Christoph

Chapter TenA Flourishing City: Jews in New Amsterdam, 1654 149 Leo Hershkowitz

Chapter ElevenGovernors Island and the Origins of Religious Tolerance 163 Joep de Koning

Chapter TwelveMarital Litigations in New Netherland and Proprietary New York: Similarities and Differences in Application of Dutch and English Law 187 Michael E. Gherke

Chapter ThirteenEnglish Law through Dutch Eyes: The Leislerian Understanding of the English Legal System in New York 207 David William Voorhees

Contributor Biographies 229

Index 235


ix

Illustrations

1 Figure I.1. “Light on the Past,” postcard from the 1909 Hudson-Fulton Celebration. New York: A. C. Bosseman & Co., c. 1909. New York State Library Postcard Collec-tion QC16510.

2 Figure I.2. “The Entrance of the Half Moon into New York Harbor,” postcard ([S. I.: P. Sander], c. 1909). Hudson River Steamboat and Navigation Ephemera Collection, 1866–1964, William S. Clark, collector. New York State Library call number SC23080.

3 Figure I.3. Figurative Map, by Adriaen Block, the first European to circumnavigate Manhattan and Long Island. Parchment, 1614. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 4.VELH 520.

4 Figure I.4. Washington Irving’s depiction of Wouter van Twiller’s administration is reflected in “Van Twiller and Council Met in Debate,” drawn by O. Steeden, published by T. A. Palser, 67 Fleet Street, London, June 21, 1830. PR 058 Printmaker File, Q-V; negative no. 83110d. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

5 Figure I.5. To advertise its Water Route through the Hudson River Valley, the New York Central Line used a romantic view of Dutch New York. New York State Library call number BRO5973+.

7 Figure I.6. New York State Capitol Fire, March 29, 1911. New York State Library Photograph Collection.

8 Figure I.7. Float—“Fate of Henry Hudson.” Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commis-sion Official Post Card no. 15. New York: Redfield Bothers, c. 1909. New York State Library Postcard Collection call number QC16510.

12 Figure 1.1. Image of court scene, from a book by Hugo Grotius. Inleidinge tot de Hollandsche rechts-geleerdheid / beschreven bij Hugo de Groot; met aanteekeningen van S. J. Fockema Andreae. Arnhem: S. Gouda Quint, 1910. New York State Library call number N,347.492,G881,93-18921,1910.


x � Illustrations

14 Figure 1.2. L. F. Tantillo, A View of Fort Orange, 1652. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

17 Figure 1.3. Bronze bust of Petrus Stuyvesant in the churchyard of St. Mark’s in-the-Bowery. It was sculpted by Dutch sculptor Toon Dupuis and given by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1915. Photo by Teodors Ermansons.

18 Figure 1.4. Insert of a map of Rensselaerswyck, showing the mapmaker, by Gillis van Scheyndel (1631–32). New York State Library call number 7474 (1631–1632).

19 Figure 1.5. “Petition of New Netherland,” by Adriaen van der Donck, paper, 1649. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 1.01.07, inv.nr. 12564.30A.

21 Figure 1.6. “Belgii Novi, Angliae Novae et Partis Virginiae,” by Johannes Janssonius, 1650. This plate was engraved in 1650 based on a 1648 manuscript map that accom-panied a 1649 petition on behalf of the New Netherland Commonalty delivered by Adriaen van der Donck to the States General. It urged the Dutch Republic to negotiate with England the exact borders between New Netherland and New Eng-land. Van der Donck delivered this manuscript map to the States General in order to support Adriaen Block’s original 1614 claim to New Netherland. The presentation of this map also illustrates an exercise of a right to seek redress of grievance from the highest governmental authority. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

22 Figure 1.7. L. F. Tantillo, Manhattan, 1660. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

28 Figure 2.1. Luanda, in present-day Angola, which the Dutch held from 1641 to 1648, was the place of origin of many enslaved Africans who toiled in the sugar plantations of Brazil. Some were brought to New Amsterdam. Watercolor by Johannes Vingboons, c. 1665, Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 4.VELH 619-064.

29 Figure 2.2. Elmina Castle in Ghana, built by the Portuguese in 1482 and taken by the Dutch in 1637, was a center of Dutch slave trade for many years. “Map of Elmina Castle” by Johannes Vingboons, watercolor, c. 1665. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 4.VELH 619-077.

30 Figure 2.3. “New Amsterdam, or New York, in America” by Pieter Mortier, colored engraving, c. 1700. Image and border 73/8 x 91/2 in.; sheet 73/4 x 103/8 in; negative no. 7613. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

39 Figure 3.1. “New Amsterdam, now New York, on Manhattan Island,” by Johannes Vingboons, watercolor, c. 1665. It is based on a 1648 drawing. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 4.VELH 619-014.

40 Figure 3.2. Statue of Hugo Grotius at the concert hall of the National Philharmonic Orchestra in Amsterdam. Photo by Julia Rosenblatt.


Illustrations � xi

44 Figure 3.3. L. F. Tantillo, Fort Amsterdam, Manhattan, c. 1658. The Dutch bark of Arent Van Curler approaches the tip of Manhattan from the Hudson River. Two of the most distinct features of the city’s skyline in the seventeenth century were its windmill and old stone fort. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

46 Figure 3.4. Wood engraving of the first market place in New Amsterdam. PR 020 Geographic File, box 2, harbor views—17th century; negative no. 83099d. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

47 Figure 3.5. “The Dutch Surrender New Amsterdam, Sept. 8, 1664.” Illustration in The People’s Standard History of the United States (1895). Collection of the New York State Library call number: 973 qE47. Photograph by Lisa Bohanan.

56 Figure 4.1. Sextette learning Dutch folk dances as taught by the 1938 Recreational Agencies Program in New York City. Album File, PR 002-209, Photograph Record of WPA for the City of New York; negative no. 81606d. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

57 Figure 4.2. Float—“Bowling on the Bowling Green.” Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission Official Post Card no. 20. New York: Redfield Bothers, c.1909. New York State Library Postcard Collection call number: QC16510.

60 Figure 4.3. Dutch “Declaration of Independence” from Spain, 1581.

61 Figure 4.4. American Declaration of Independence, drawn by Momberger; lettering by Craske, published by J. C. Buttre, 48 Franklin St. New York City. PR 068 Subject File, flat file, documents (C-E); negative no. 83136. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

68 Figure 5.1. Letter from Pieter Schaghen in which the “purchase” of Manhattan is mentioned, paper, 1626. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Neth-erlands) 1.01.04, inv.nr. 5751 II.

70 Figure 5.2. Map of Native populations and land use c. 1609. From New York State Museum.

71 Figure 5.3. L. F. Tantillo, The Trading House: Fort Nassau on the Bank of the Hudson River on Castle Island (present day Albany). This fort, built by the Dutch trader Hen-drick Christiaensen, was the first nonnative structure to be built in New Netherland. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

73 Figure 5.4. Contract of sale of land along the Hudson River from the Mohican Indians to Kiliaen van Rensselaer, August 6, 1630. New York State Library call number VSC7079 Item 1.

76 Figure 5.5. L. F. Tantillo, Visitors at Dusk. A farmer and his family anticipate the arrival of Mohican fur traders in a dugout canoe. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

78 Figure 5.6. “Dutch Traders at Manhattan.” PR 068 Subject fil, box 21, f. Colonial Period, Gen.; negative no. 71357. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.


xii � Illustrations

84 Figure 6.1. Portrait of Petrus Stuyvesant, attributed to Hendrick Couturier. Oil on wood panel, 22½ x 17½ inches; accession no. 1909.2. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

85 Figure 6.2. “Fort Amsterdam, Now the Battery, in Kieft’s Days” ([S. I.: P. Sander], c. 1909). Hudson River Steamboat and Navigation Ephemera Collection, 1866–1964, William S. Clark, collector. New York State Library call number SC23080.

86 Figure 6.3. Commission of Petrus Stuyvesant as Director General: Order Books of the States General, 1646. Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands), 1.01.06, inv.nr. 12272, fol. 201.

88 Figure 6.4. Float—“Reception of Peter Stuyvesant.” Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission Official Post Card no. 19. New York: Redfield Bothers, c. 1909. New York State Library Postcard Collection, call number: QC16510.

92 Figure 6.5. Sketch of Dutch notary. According to Charles Gehring, “It is rare to find expressions of artistic talent in the usually sober and dry administrative records of the seventeenth century. Imagine the surprise when the accompanying drawing appeared upon turning the page of Pieter Perssens protocol of notarial records. It shows the notary sitting at his desk reviewing his records. Not only does the drawing offer a rare glimpse into the world of this important position in the Dutch judicial system, but it also exhibits the artistic talent of his clerk. Although Notary Perssens records survive in the Municipal Archives of Amsterdam for everyone to read, further artistic expressions of his anonymous clerk are unknown.” Courtesy of the New York State Library.

93 Figure 6.6. L. F. Tantillo, The Ferry. By the 1640s Dutch colonists had started to build homesteads outside of Fort Orange (now Albany, NY). They settled on both sides of the Hudson, farming the lands of the Patroon, Kiliaen van Rensselaer, the employer of Adriaen van der Donck. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

97 Figure 6.7. “Peter Stuyvesant’s Country House.” PR 086, Samuel Hollyer Print Collection, #49, box 1, folder 4; negative no. 83109d. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

98 Figure 6.8. “Town house of Peter Stuyvesant.” PR 086, Samuel Hollyer Print Col-lection, box 1, folder 4; negative no. 3228. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

99 Figure 6.9. “Totius Neobelgii nova et accuratissima tabula” A New and (Most) Accurate Map of (the Entirety of) New Netherland, by R. and J. Ottens. Amsterdam, 1720s. The copper plate of this map was produced by Hugo Allard c. 1656 as a facsimile plate of Nicolas Visscher’s 1651 composite map of New Netherland and New Amsterdam. The baroque cartouche shows the wall erected by Stuyvesant in 1653 against a possible English attack. It also depicts Broad Street (then a canal) and Stuyvesant’s mansion at the end of Whitehall Street facing the East River. Bert Twaalfhoven Collection, Fordham University Library, Bronx, New York, Map #14.


Illustrations � xiii

106 Figure 7.1. “De Stadt Nieuw Amsterdam gelegen op het Eylandt Manhattans in Nieuw Nederlandt,” showing the Company town from the East River, 1648. The large building to the right is the Stadt Herbergh. Courtesy of the Austrian National Library, Vienna.

110 Figure 7.2. Detail of the Labadist General View, by Jasper Dankaerts, showing the East River shoreline c. 1679. The large building at the head of the right dock is the Stadt Huys; the King’s House Tavern is to its right.

113 Figure 7.3. The former Goldman Sachs building at the corner of Broad and Pearl Streets stands on the site of the original Stadt Huys.

118 Figure 8.1. The Flushing Remonstrance—A petition from the freeholders of Flushing and Jamaica, Long Island, to Governor Petrus Stuyvesant protesting his ban on Quaker religious meetings, 1657. New York State Archives. Dutch colonial council minutes, 1638–1665. Series A1809-78.

122 Figure 8.2. “Pascaerte van Nieu Nederland Streckende vande Noordt Revier tot Hendrick Christiaens Eÿlandt,” by Jacob Robijn, 1685. Long Island Sound served as a funnel between Rhode Island and Manhattan: In August 1657, the reverends Mega-polensis and Drisius surmised that the departure of an English ship with Quakers had sailed for Rhode Island, because “all the cranks of New England retire thither.” From the collection of Joep de Koning.

123 Figure 8.3. Postage stamp commemorating the Flushing Remonstrance Tercentenary (1957). Photo by Teodors Ermansons.

129 Figure 9.1. View of New York from the North, 1679. PR 020 Geographic File, flat file, 19th century reproductions of 17th century views; negative no. 75087. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

130 Figure 9.2. The beaver trade was so important that the animal was part of the seal of New Netherland. This image was prepared for The Huguenot-Walloon New Neth-erland Commission, instituted by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, for the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the settling in New Netherland of Walloons (French and Belgian Huguenots) by the Dutch West India Company, in 1624. State Library call number N,284.573,H89.

131 Figure 9.3. L. F. Tantillo, Fort Orange, 1635. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

133 Figure 9.4. Stained glass depiction of Petrus Stuyvesant at St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery. It was donated by Daughters of the Holland Dames in 1903. Photo by Teodors Ermansons.

134 Figure 9.5. L. F. Tantillo, Castle Island, 1645, depicting one of two farms located in the vicinity of the present day Port of Albany. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.

138 Figure 9.6. Map of the South River (now Delaware River) in New Netherland, by Johannes Vingboons, watercolor, c. 1639. Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. G3291.S12 coll. H3 Vault: Harr vol. 3, map 14.


xiv � Illustrations

140 Figure 9.7. Section of the 1673 view of New Amsterdam, by Hugo Allard. This section of the Restitutio map, celebrating the Dutch recapture of New Netherland in 1673, shows the location of the Lutheran Church in New Orange (formerly New Amsterdam). From the collection of Joep de Koning.

150 Figure 10.1. Painting by Gordon Miller, depicting the St. Catrina and Peereboom in Nieuw Amsterdam harbor, 1654. From the collection of Leo and Marcia Hershkowitz. Reproduction with permission of the artist.

151 Figure 10.2. “Pernambuco,” by Johannes Vingboons, watercolor, c. 1665. After the Portuguese recaptured Brazil from the Dutch in 1654, an estimated 23 Jewish refugees arrived in New Amsterdam. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 4.VELH 619-074.156

156 Figure 10.3. Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova (New Netherland and New England), by Willem Blaeu, Amsterdam, 1635. This is the engraved version of Adriaen Block’s 1614 manuscript map. It is the first map to illustrate North American animals, particularly the fur-bearing kind that lured many traders. North is to the right. From the Bert Twaalfhoven Collection. Fordham University Library, Bronx, New York, Map #2.

159 Figure 10.4. Ordinance exempting Jews from military service, Aug. 28, 1655. Jews were exempted from militia duty in the Netherlands, upon payment of a fine, and a similar exemption was granted to Jews in New Netherland. The reason was not only the legal precedent in the Netherlands, but also “the aversion and disaffection of this militia to be fellow soldiers of the aforesaid nation [Jews].” New York State Archives, accession A1875-78 Dutch Colonial Ordinances, vol. 16 (pt. 1), p. 59. In Charles Gehring, trans. and ed., Laws & Writs of Appeal 1647–1663 (Syracuse University Press, 1991), 50–51.

164 Figure 11.1. Adapted from a section of the Manatus map, by Johannes Vingboons, c. 1639, showing Governors Island in relation to Liberty Island and Ellis Island. Courtesy: Library of Congress, Geography & Map Division.

165 Figure 11.2. “Het boeck . . . van den oproer der weder-dooperen.” Lambertus Hortensius, 1548: In their efforts to establish an ultra-theocracy, insurgent Anabaptists tried to seize various towns. They succeeded in taking Muenster in 1534 as their New Jerusalem, but not for long. In 1535, in Amsterdam, armed Anabaptists attempted to seize power but failed. The surviving offenders were executed. Courtesy: Library of the University of Amsterdam.

171 Figure 11.3. “Beschrijvinghe van Virginia, Nieuw Nederlandt/Nieuw Engelandt” and “Orbis habitabilis oppida et vestitus.” Joost Hartgers 1651. (1) Early Mohawk native, c. 1628, with war-club in front of a stronghold and castle. The latter would often contain 20–30 houses, each a dwelling for 100-plus persons. The 1624 and 1625 Instructions stated that if the colonists’ living quarters or forts had to be on a place already inhabited by Indians, they had to be persuaded with friendly words or be given remuneration to let the settlers live among them in peace and to the natives’ satisfaction while making a contract which would be signed in their manner (i.e., the legend of the purchase of Manhattan). (2) Carolus Allard, c. 1695: Portrayal of the economic alliance between Indians in the foreground with colonial settlement in


Illustrations � xv

the background where manufactured goods (woolen duffel/textiles) are bartered with native men for peltries and with native women for produce. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

172 Figure 11.4. Watercolor by Gordon Miller. Native Americans trading with the crew of the Half Moon (Halve Maen) on the Mauritius (Hudson) River in 1609: Sixteenth and seventeenth-century ships fostered cross-cultural global communications and opened up remote societies, which until then had been inaccessible. From the collection of Joep de Koning. Reproduction with permission of the artist.

173 Figure 11.5. “Map of the seventeen new provinces of Lower Germany accurately drawn in the shape of a lion,” by Hessel Gerritsz, 1608. According to Joep de Koning, Leo Belgicus delivered to Governors Island the message of toleration as New York State’s lawful patrimony, New York City’s identity, and the island’s legacy as the lifeblood of American Liberty. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

174 Figure 11.6. Section of a five-piece map called West Indische Paskaert, by Willem Blaeu, c. 1629. The West Indische Paskaert depicts the geographic reach of the June 1621 West India Company Charter to include all countries situated on the African west coast and in all of the Americas; this section published separately in 1630. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

176 Figure 11.7. Article 2 of the Provisional Regulations for the Colonists. It specified freedom of conscience for the settlers and provided that no one should be persecuted for religion. This item is reproduced by permission of The Huntington Library, San Marino, CA, HM 548.

178 Figure 11.8. “Beschrijvinghe van Virginia, Nieuw Nederlandt/Nieuw Engelandt,” by Joost Hartgers, 1651. This engraving shows the planned fort, superimposed on an authentic view of Manhattan with the (fudged) Raritan River in the background. The depiction follows the 1625 instructions to surveyor and fortification engineer Quirijn Fredericksz, wherein the streets were to be perpendicular to the fort’s wall. Pearl, Bridge, and Stone streets are already clearly visible, adjusted for topography yet perpendicular to the fort’s east wall, now Whitehall Street. The original place for secur-ing cattle overnight became a parade ground, the Parade, and morphed into Bowling Green under English authority. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

180 Figure 11.9. Johannes Blaeu, 1650: Adriaen van der Donck’s 1649 petition to the States General seeking redress of grievance (now a First Amendment right) was accom-panied by a 1648 pen and ink view of New Amsterdam. This 1650 engraved/etched version accompanied the printed version of his Remonstrance, published in 1650 as “Het Vertoogh.” Careful perusal allows one to discern the bustle of 72 persons in this serene townscape. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

181 Figure 11.10. “Nieu Amsterdam or New York,” by Carolus Allard, c. 1688. The pro-visional Articles of Transfer ceding New Netherland to the invading English forces in 1664 included freedom of the seas and trade to and from the Netherlands and the right to enjoy freedom of conscience in religion and church discipline. From the collection of Joep de Koning.


xvi � Illustrations

190 Figure 12.1. Float—“Dutch Doorway.” Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission Offi-cial Post Card no. 22. New York: Redfield Bothers, c. 1909. New York State Library Postcard Collection. New York State Library call number QC16510.

194 Figure 12.2. “In 1664 the province of New Netherland passed from the Dutch to the English.” Mural by Attilio Pusterla (1862–1941) in the ceremonial courtroom at New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY. Photographed by Teodors Ermansons. Artistic license: Stuyvesant never signed the Articles of Capitulation.

197 Figure 12.3. Blandina Bayard’s agreement for purchase of Indian lands, October 15, 1697. New York State Library call number 17649. Agreement between Bayard and the following Indians: Zerickham, Mettissiena, Eghkenem, Onarkommagh, Kraghkon, Saeuwapigh Kim, and Nanawaron for the purchase of land at Ramapo, Rockland County, NY.

198 Figure 12.4. Kiliaen van Rensselaer was Lord of the Manor of Rensselaerswyck, comprising most of present-day Albany and Rensselaer Counties. He left all his property to his wife Anna. Under Dutch inheritance law, which was continued in the colony of New York by the Articles of Capitulation of 1664, widows could inherit both personal and real property. In contrast, under English law, at least in theory, all real property passed to the eldest son and the widow received her dower share—one-third of the income of her husband’s property for her lifetime. New York State Archives, accession J0038-82 Probated Wills, fileAV1.

209 Figure 13.1. Jacob Leisler’s residence on the Strand (now Whitehall Street). New York Public Library. Image ID 800017.210

210 Figure 13.2. Duke of York’s Charter from his brother King Charles II, granting him the colony of New York, 1664. New York State Archives. New York (State), Charter of the proprietary colony from Charles II to the Duke of York, 1664. Series B1371-93.

212 Figure 13.3. The Duke of York’s Charter. New York Public Library. Image ID 808252.

213 Figure 13.4. Dutch deed signed by Petrus Stuyvesant, granting land at Wildwyck (renamed Kingston in 1664), Apr. 25, 1663. The deed was presented to English Gov. Richard Nicolls to obtain confirmation of the Dutch grant, according to the Articles of Capitulation of 1664, which guaranteed Dutch land titles. New York State Archives, accession A0272, Applications for Land Grants (“Land Papers”), vol. 1, p. 7.

214 Figure 13.5. Patent of the Manor of Rensselaerswyck, November 4, 1685, D. S. Thomas Dongan. New York State Library call number VSC7079 Item 2.

216 Figure 13.6. “In October 1683 the first New York Assembly established a ‘Charter of Liberties’ providing for trial by jury.” Mural by Attilio Pusterla in the ceremonial courtroom at New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY, pho-tographed by Teodors Ermansons.


Illustrations � xvii

221 Figure 13.7. Arms of the State of New York, 1778. Lady Justice is “draped in short gown and petticoat, according to the Dutch costume.” Illustration and quote from Edgar A. Werner, Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York (1886). New York Court of Appeals Collection.



xix

For us, as with so many others, our interest in the field began not long after we started to read Russell Shorto’s book The Island at the Center of the World. He transported us to a place of which we had been only dimly aware. Rightfully, he reveals that Charles Gehring’s translations of old Dutch language records have made much of this possible. Charly, as he is known and to whom all New Netherland paths lead, is the ultimate mentor, and that is how we gratefully regard him.

At the Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York, we were planning the 2009 calendar of events, and it seemed appropriate to dedicate at least one program to our Dutch legacy, considering it was the year of the Henry Hudson Quadricentennial. Plans were shaped by ideas, which gave way to research, and, eventually, familiarity with an array of scholars who had been laboring in the vineyards for decades.

From the outset, we received encouragement from Marilyn Marcus, Executive Director of HSCSNY, who has been with us through every stage of this work. Her input, ideas, and initiative go well beyond the hundreds of conversations and e-mails with her in planning and developing the volume. We also thank her administrative assistants, Olivia Green and Michael Benowitz, for their considerable help.

We love pictures. The essays in this volume—by world-level scholars—are themselves stirring, but imagery enhances them. Collecting and allocating pictures has been an ongoing enterprise, and we thank Evan Friss, who arranged and stored selections we made from libraries, archives, and museums. Hearty thanks also to Teodors Ermansons of the New York State Court System. He is a creative photographer, and his work is reflected throughout this book.

In finding articles, books, and images, we had a great deal of help from several sources. Mary Collins at the Holland Society Library smiled cheerfully at our “lists of must-haves,” as did Jay Shuman, the New York University Law School Librarian, and Jean Ashton at the New-York Historical Society. We appreciate also the courtesies shown us at the New York Public Library and the Museum of the City of New York.

Mary Ellen Pelzer, Director of the South Street Seaport Museum in New York, has been generous in her time and her cooperation, personally, and through her assistant, Molly Nora.

Acknowledgments with thanks


xx � Acknowledgments with Thanks

Sue Kriete of the New-York Historical Society painstakingly assembled for us the images the society had in its relevant collections, a sumptuous menu. We chose several, including one of her favorites and ours, a picture of elementary school girls learning a Dutch dance.

How rewarding it is to deal with the New York State Library, Archives, and Museum staffers in Albany. The facilities are well maintained by energetic and talented people, such as Fred Bassett and Vicki Weiss, Senior Librarians in the Manuscripts and Special Collections Department of the State Library. Christine W. Ward, the State Archivist, and James D. Folts, Head of Reference Services at the State Archives, led the way to many interesting items. Their suggestions were always on the mark, and they made our visits to Albany delightful.

Not much time passed between calls and e-mails from us to Frances Murray, Chief Legal Reference Attorney at the New York Court of Appeals. She has been at the receiving end of numerous “Fran, can you help us locate . . .” appeals for help.

Try as we may to be meticulous in our own writing, vexing questions of grammar and style arise, and we have regularly consulted our friend Susan McCloskey. She has repeatedly helped us triumph over syntax, but played no role in whatever miscues appear.

Getting the manuscript into shape was sometimes arduous, but we had help from Karen Grant, who could always be counted on, especially to resolve the conflicts between Microsoft Word and Word Perfect.

Thanks also to Joep de Koning for the use of his extensive private map collection and help, and to Charles Gehring, Jaap Jacobs, David Voorhees, Willem Frijhof, Martha Shattuck, and Leo and Marcia Hershkowitz for their encouragement and suggestions, particularly in the early stages of this project.

We have saved our final acknowledgment for the members of the Board of Trustees of the HSCSNY, with special thanks to Judge Judith S. Kaye, Roy Reardon, and John Gordan III, for their lasting support.

We gratefully acknowledge the generosity of the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation in funding the publication of this volume, with thanks as well to the Historical Records of the New York County Clerk, Inc., for its contribution.

Albert and Julia RosenblattPleasant Valley, New York


xxi

Portions of “Real Estate or Political Sovereignty? The Dutch, Munsees, and the Purchase of Manhattan Island,” by Paul Otto, first appeared as part of chapter 3, “Trade and Settlement, 1624–1638,” in Paul Otto, The Dutch Munsee Encounter in America: The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Hudson Valley (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006) and are used here by permission of the author and the publisher.

Earlier versions of “A Flourishing City—Jews in New Amsterdam, 1654,” by Leo Hersh-kowitz, appeared as “By Chance or by Choice,” American Jewish Archives Journal, LVII, nos. 1&2 (2005): 1–13, published by the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives; and “By Chance or Choice: Jews in New Amsterdam 1654,” de Halve Maen 77 (Summer 2004): 23–30, published by the Holland Society of New York. Permission has been granted by the respective publishers for the present revised and expanded essay.

“The Souls of New Amsterdam’s African America Children,” by Joyce D. Goodfriend, originally appeared in the online journal Common-Place (www.common-place.org) in 2003. Used here by permission.

“The Declaration of Independence and the Dutch Legacy,” by Wijnand W. Mijnhardt, was first presented as a part of the panel Declarations of Independence and Rights, at the 11th Confer-ence of the International Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies at UCLA, August 3–10, 2003.

“Crimen Læsæ Maiestatis or Abuse of Power? The 1647 Trial of Cornelis Melijn and Jochem Pietersz Kuijter,” by Jaap Jacobs, is an adaptation of parts of chapter 6 of his work in progress, a full biography of Petrus Stuyvesant.

Acknowledgments of Previous or Prospective Appearances



xxiii

It gives me great pleasure to write a foreword to this book, which provides a useful and telling picture of life in New Netherland. Until recently, Americans generally thought of the Dutch settlement in the New World (when they thought of it at all) in terms of carica-tures—the authoritarian director general with a wooden leg, Petrus Stuyvesant, whose name adorns a cigarette brand and a beautiful memorial stone in St. Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery in lower Manhattan; the trade of the island of Manhattan from Indian tribes for goods with a calculated value of $24. All this attention gave happy meaning to the lyrics of another day: “Even old New York was once New Amsterdam.” But as we know, some of this history is at once over-romanticized and underappreciated.

Recent books, as well as this collection of essays, have been aided immeasurably by an extraordinary scholar, Charles Gehring, who translated the seventeenth-century Dutch records, which had been stored silent and little used for countless years in the New York State Library in Albany. Gehring has given more than three decades to the painstaking effort to translate the papers, diaries, records, and books, written in seventeenth-century Dutch script and faded by time. The New Netherland Project, with which Gehring is associated, and other groups, have greatly expanded our knowledge of and fascination with the Dutch era. The within volume is edited by Albert and Julia Rosenblatt, two New Yorkers who live in the Hudson Valley where the history of patroons, adventurous seafaring, and a very Dutch sense of a well-ordered society was marked by the quadricentennial celebration of Henry Hudson’s voyage in 1609, which opened the New World to European settlement. We are indebted to Judge Rosenblatt, retired from New York State’s highest court, and his wife Julia Rosenblatt, a retired Vassar College professor, for selecting and editing these essays, which surround the reader with information, facts, anecdotes, and graphic word pictures of an era worthy of study and recollection. And best of all, there is a uniformity of good writing, along with wonderful pictorial representation, which makes for pleasurable reading.

When arriving on these shores long before our nation was born, the new settlers had brought with them the laws of Holland, which gave a solid structure to the governance of New Amsterdam. The Dutch Republic was governed by civil law and jurisprudence based on written law and statutes, as Martha Shattuck’s essay points out. This system did not define processes

Foreword


xxiv � Foreword

of petition and redress against alleged wrongs, nor did it grant the freedom and liberties that Americans associate with our Bill of Rights. The settlers of Manhattan had to struggle for the liberal values of freedom that government is arguably established to secure and of which the courts are the ultimate protectors. These essays recount the arduous journey toward freedom that had its beginning in New Amsterdam, a journey that brought ideas and inspiration to the Continental Congress and to the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in Philadel-phia. In fact, as Russell Shorto wrote, and as this book certainly supports, Americans owe an important debt to the culture of the Netherlands and its development of Manhattan.

Was the Netherlands, not England, the mother of America as Edward Bok asserted? Bok came to America as a fourteen-year-old Dutch immigrant and transformed our twentieth-century reading habits as the publisher of the Ladies Home Journal and the Saturday Evening Post. He cited four institutions that were brought from Old to New Amsterdam: free public education, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the secret ballot (one hears the echoes of the famous Four Freedoms speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another American who honored his Dutch heritage). This book helps us understand what Bok was talking about and gives credibility to his argument. In his essay, Wijnand Mijnhardt shows the striking similarities of our Declaration of Independence to the Act of Abjuration of 1581 (Plakkaat van Verlatinge), with which the Dutch declared their independence from Spain, becoming the first country in history to win its freedom from a dominant world empire. To read Charles Gehring’s account of the 1657 Flushing Remonstrance is to understand the Dutch commitment to freedom of worship and conscience. Perhaps the fervor of these proud Dutch assertions could be qualified by broader historical analysis, but it should be remembered that the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 began their fateful voyage from Leiden, the university town in Holland where they had been given Dutch protection for years as they escaped religious persecution by the English.

An excellent essay by Troy McKenzie and Wilson Freeman tells how arbitration as a means of dispute resolution was firmly established in New Amsterdam. Arbitration—a growing and significant part of American legal processes—reflected Dutch values of pragmatism, common sense, and reconciliation rather than the often endless confrontation of modern courtroom litigation.

The legendary City Hall of New Amsterdam, the Stadt Huys, once the subject of archeo-logical digs in lower Manhattan, is re-created in an imaginative essay that demonstrates how the courtroom that commanded its entire second floor was understood to be at the center of a civil society that respected law and justice as fundamental to its governance.

Dutch rule in New Amsterdam lasted less than fifty years. With the English takeover in 1664, most of the Dutch settlers elected to stay in what its new rulers renamed New York. There must have been a sense of quiet pleasure among the descendants of those settlers when the Nether-lands in 1782 became the first country to recognize the independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

Opening Statements: Law, Jurisprudence, and the Legacy of Dutch New York addresses only a short chapter in the long history of America. Its judgments will not be without dispute, but then, as the eminent Dutch historian Pieter Geyl once wrote: “History is an argument without end.” There can be no doubt, however, as to the value of those seeds of freedom that were deeply planted in New Netherland. They produced a revolutionary harvest that causes us to appreciate what the Dutch inspired. A small country, the Netherlands—yes—but always a powerful ally for America in the unending struggle for a well-ordered society where freedom and justice prevail.

William J. vanden Heuvel


1

We may call England our “mother country,” but our culture, political system, and juris-prudence have a more varied heritage. Each state with its own settlement history has a unique flavor. Our nation’s lineage, and New York’s in particular, has an often-overlooked Dutch com-ponent. Scholars differ as to how much of New Netherland, or Dutch New York, survived in present-day institutions. Some commentators say that the heterogeneous, commerce-oriented

Introduction

Albert M. Rosenblatt and Julia C. Rosenblatt

Figure I.1. “Light on the Past,” postcard from the 1909 Hudson-Fulton Celebration. New York: A. C. Bosseman & Co., c. 1909. New York State Library Postcard Collection QC16510.


2 � Opening Statements

nature of the forty years or so of Dutch settlement gave New York a character that persists to this day. Others contend that little, if anything, survives.

By the beginning of the seventeenth century, Western Europe had a long-established trade relationship with the East, from which it desired luxuries such as spices and precious stones. In exchange, the East valued European goods, silver, and manufactured articles.

Europeans had few trade routes. One was across the desert and mountains to the Caspian and Black Seas; another from the Arabian and Red Seas into the Indian Ocean; still another

around the Cape of Good Hope. Because these routes were long and controlled by rival countries, each sought alternate passageways to the East, including a “Northeast passage” to Asia.

The Netherlands, at the time a center of trade and commerce, hoped to find such a route. In 1609, the Dutch East India Company engaged Henry Hudson, an Englishman, for the venture. He did not find the route and is best known for exploring the river that now bears his name.

Not long after Hudson’s exploration, the Dutch sent others to examine the territory. Adriaen Block explored the coast all the way to Cape Cod and mapped the region. When in 1613 his ship burned near the shore of lower Manhattan, he and his crew built a new one on the spot.

Although the Dutch never found the hoped-for “Northeast passage,” they found a land teeming with resources to trade, especially a wealth of beavers, whose pelts found favor in

Figure I.2. “The Entrance of the Half Moon into New York Harbor,” postcard ([S. I.: P. Sander], c. 1909). Hudson River Steamboat and Navigation Ephemera Collection, 1866–1964, William S. Clark, collector. New York State Library call number SC23080.


Figure I.3. Figurative Map, by Adriaen Block, the first European to circumnavigate Manhattan and Long Island. Parchment, 1614. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 4.VELH 520.© 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany


Figure I.4. Washington Irving’s depiction of Wouter van Twiller’s administration is reflected in “Van Twiller and Council Met in Debate,” drawn by O. Steeden, published by T. A. Palser, 67 Fleet Street, London, June 21, 1830. PR 058 Printmaker File, Q-V; negative no. 83110d. Collection of The New-York Historical Society.

European fashion. From 1624 through 1664, the Dutch colonized and controlled a large area—“New Netherland,” including “New Amsterdam” as its nerve center. For that near half-century, the Dutch established government, trade, and institutions that helped shape the future of what would become New York.

For years, the history of New York under Dutch rule languished in what Washington Irving called “the regions of doubt and fable.” He used this phrase in his preface, “an author’s apology,” to the 1848 edition of his whimsical history of New York as told by an imaginary Diedrich Knickerbocker.

Irving penned his fictional history in 1809, the bicentennial year of Hudson’s exploration of the river so vital to New Netherland. Irving never intended his writing to substitute for true historical scholarship, merely using the gap in recorded history to write something entertaining. Indeed, he was one of the citizens who banded together in 1804 to form the New-York Historical Society, which took steps to acquire and preserve New York’s historical record. Ironically, his “history” plunged the Dutch epoch even deeper into the shadowy realm of legend.


5

Figure I.5. To advertise its Water Route through the Hudson River Valley, the New York Central Line used a romantic view of Dutch New York. New York State Library call number BRO5973+.



The Dutch period would have remained in Washington Irving’s land of doubt and fable were it not for people who had a passion to preserve and study documents from the era. Many records, letters, diaries, and the like have perished through neglect or disaster. Others have been spared. The saga of the archives is an adventure story in itself.1

The Dutch records, along with British colonial records, had survived years on board ship during the Revolutionary War, followed by multiple moves, mutilation, theft, periods of neglect, and two fires. In the meantime, New York took some positive steps to enlarge and protect its archives. In 1895, it established the Office of the State Historian, and in 1950, it ordered a systematic management of Executive Branch records. In 1975, the state hired its first archivist, and three years later opened its storage and research facility on the eleventh floor of the Cultural Education Center in Albany.

Historians know that record retention is chancy. Documents take up space, and those who covet that space will seek to dispose of the papers. If we are lucky, records will go to a willing archive, but too often end up in the trash. Several contributors to this volume can be numbered among those who cared enough to collect and preserve important materials.

Historian Leo Hershkowitz has rescued many valuable documents, in some cases moments before they were on the way to the shredder. He has climbed into dumpsters to retrieve unappreciated items. He tells of hearing, “You want these things? Take ‘em.” That is why Queens College, where he is a history professor, held several valuable archives for a time. Hershkowitz has since distributed the Queens archives to the care of various institutions. The City of Kingston wanted the Dutch documents related to Ulster County, and he furnished them. Hershkowitz has sent records of New York’s Court of Chancery and Supreme Court of Judicature—a huge collection of pre-1847 court records—to the State Archives, where they are tended carefully under the direction of archivist Christine W. Ward.

Fortunately, the paper of the Dutch colonial era was acid free; unfortunately, the ink was not. Some records suffered from clumsy efforts to reconstruct or preserve them. Today, the State Archives cares for its records in a pristine laboratory. As conservation has become a science, conservators now know exactly what solutions will lessen stains without disturbing the ink or compromising the paper. They know what substances will mend torn paper to prevent further damage without adverse consequences years later.

Storing papers in a library or archive does not always ensure safety. In 1911, fire swept through the New York State Library, destroying much of the state’s historical records. The Dutch documents, considered of lesser importance, occupied the bottom shelves. As the English records burned, the debris fell to the bottom, protecting much of what lay below. A photo of the 1911 fire occupies a prominent place on the bulletin board of the conservation laboratory, a cautionary reminder of past disasters.

These records are, of course, in seventeenth-century Dutch, a language difficult even for those who speak modern Dutch. In the early 1970s when four volumes, already translated, remained unpublished, Ralph de Groff Sr., a trustee of the Holland Society of New York, wanted to see these published and have the remaining volumes translated. He contacted his acquaintance, then-vice president Nelson Rockefeller, who got in touch with his successor as governor, Malcolm Wilson, asking him to make money available in his discretionary budget to hire a translator. Wilson agreed. Peter Christoph, Curator of the Manuscripts and History section of the New York State Library, did not have to look far for the right person. Charles Gehring had done research at the library for his PhD dissertation. Gehring started work in


Introduction � 7

Figure I.6. New York State Capitol Fire, March 29, 1911. New York State Library Photograph Collection.

September 1974. The state funds lasted one year. After that, the New Netherland Project has been kept alive by private funding.

Much of the contemporary writing about New Netherland shows the place to be rife with drunkenness, brawling, and adultery—truly disorderly. Disorder endows writing with the dramatic tension that makes exciting reading, and many primary sources lead directly to this aspect of life. A significant part of New Netherland documents comes from court records, which by their very nature chronicle crime and conflict.

Although we can expect a young frontier community to have a bit of the “wild west” about it, there surely must have been families who lived simple, god-fearing lives, going about their business and family rearing without making trouble. We have little information about them. If diaries ever existed, they have been lost. Few letters home to Holland survived generations of Dutch house cleaning. A new cache, however, has come to the attention of Charles Gehring, from of all places, the British Admiralty. During wartime, ships of opposing nations commonly


Figure I.7. Float—“Fate of Henry Hudson.” Hudson-Fulton Celebration Commission Official Post Card no. 15. New York: Redfield Bothers, c. 1909. New York State Library Postcard Collection call number QC16510.


Introduction � 9

confronted each other and confiscated correspondence entrusted to the ships’ captains. Some letters home never reached their intended recipients, but reposed in the Admiralty files all these years—more than three centuries.

Some students at Leiden University have begun a project called Brieven als Buit, or letters as loot, drawn from the British Admiralty records, some of which pertain to New Netherland. Each month the students select a letter to post on the project’s Web site. A student brought one in particular to Gehring’s attention. In 1664, when New Netherland was transferred to the English, Hendrick Meessen Vrooman in Schenectady wrote to his brother Jacob in Leiden. He discussed his crops and his reaction to the English takeover. He did not think it was so bad. With the English soldiers present, the Indians were less of a threat, he believed.2

Interest in New Netherland comes in waves. The last peaked a hundred years ago, around 1909, the year of the Hudson-Fulton celebration, which included parades, floats, library and museum displays, and an exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A so-called Dutch Mania led up to the Hudson tercentennial and persisted for about a decade or two afterward.

The recent quadricentennial of Henry Hudson’s 1609 exploration has brought renewed interest in the period and new scholarly accounts. The recent flurry of interest comes from more than the current century marker. Several events have brought the study of this period to light: First, scholars have access to more primary source material than ever before, owing to the work of the New Netherland Project under the direction of Charles Gehring. Second, the best-selling The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto has brought this facet of our history to public attention. Examining Dutch influence on America is too interesting to be a once-a-century phenomenon. Many avenues of research lie before future scholars. Let us hope they maintain a steady stream of new information and further illumination from historians.

In the present volume, a broad spectrum of eminent scholars treat the legal heritage New Netherland bequeathed to New York. This volume covers a number of issues that speak to that heritage, including concepts of governance, liberty, women’s rights, and religious freedom. In many ways, those fundamental concepts resonate in today’s legal culture. Not all our authors agree with each other about everything, and that is fine. Controversy advances scholarship.

NOTES

1. For a full account, see Charles Gehring, “New York’s Dutch Records: A Historiographical Note—Updated,” The Hudson River Valley Review 25, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 12–19; and Christine W. Ward, “The New York State Archives—25 Years Old This Year,” New York Archives 3, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 34–36.

2. “De Nieu Nederlanse Marcurius,” 25, no. 4 (December 2009): 4. Online at http://www.nnp.org/nni/Marcurius/marc25-4.pdf.



11

Martha Shattuck treats a subject that is an important part of the jurisprudential landscape: the right of peti-tion. Our own right to petition the government for redress of grievances is embedded in the Constitution’s First Amendment. It grew up in New Netherland as part of an unwritten Old World Dutch legacy.

The magistrates of local courts, and on occasion New Netherland’s colonial council, often used the title of this essay when dealing with slanderous language used against them and their decisions, or behavior that violated the laws. Such behavior could result in “serious consequences” which not only could not be suffered but also was promptly punished by making the defendant publicly apolo-gize and pay a steep fine.1 The laws that regulated New Netherland, and were to be upheld, were those that regulated Holland, and were brought over with the first colonists. Once the Amsterdam Chamber of the West India Company was given sole oversight of New Netherland, the laws and ordinances of the city of Amsterdam were added to the list. Moreover, as stated in the instructions to the first director, any new laws or ordinances that the director and colonial council wished to enact had to be approved by the Company. Since many of these ordinances dealt with the living conditions in a new world, such as relations with the Indians, regulations for baking bread, and taxes, they needed immediate attention and were usually issued before receiving the Company’s approval and apparently did not cause a negative response from the Company. This was, therefore, a highly regulated country governed firmly by the written laws of Holland and its own laws and ordinances.

There was one action, however, that did not appear in the law—the right of the public to petition the courts to achieve their rights and privileges they felt had been denied; to demand changes within the community; to ask for a particular job not delegated by the courts; or to try to depose the magistrates or directors not abiding by the known laws. This seldom discussed aspect of public participation in government was not part of the established and written jurisprudence, but quite likely, as it was never contested in either Holland or New Netherland, part of customary law.2 This chapter will discuss the background of petitioning in Holland and its use and effect in New Netherland.

The law by which the Dutch governed was civil law, a jurisprudence based on written laws and statutes, as opposed to common law employed by the English, which was based on

“… a well regulated country where justice and government prevail “

Martha Dickinson Shattuck

Chapter One


Figure 1.1. Image of court scene, from a book by Hugo Grotius. Inleidinge tot de Hollandsche rechts-geleerdheid / beschreven bij Hugo de Groot; met aanteekeningen van S. J. Fockema Andreae. Arnhem: S. Gouda Quint, 1910. New York State Library call number N,347.492,G881,93-18921,1910.© 2013 State University of New York Press, Albany

“…a well regulated country” � 13

custom and precedents established by the courts. Dutch law is often called Roman-Dutch law, a term that originated with Dutch lawyer Simon van Leeuwen who first used it as a subtitle of a book he published in 1652.3 If any ordinances, statutes, local laws, customs, or privileges granted in charters or otherwise to towns did not apply to a specific situation the “common written law,” essentially Roman law, was applied. As the Dutch Republic, lacking a strong central government, had a decentralized political system, the legal system was not identical in each of its seven provinces.4 Thus, it was only the jurisprudence of Holland that was required by the West India Company in its instructions for New Netherland. It is therefore the petitioning in Holland that we will look at first.

The decentralized aspect of the republic’s government also meant that petitions from the people were aimed at any and all levels of government, including the States General, depending on what they were asking for. In his detailed description of petitioning, Dutch historian Henk van Nierop has outlined the process. For example, the petitions were to be “written on a standard-size sheet of paper, with a stamp costing a few stuivers affixed to discourage idle requests.” The petitioners called themselves “supplicants,” followed by their names, and then went on to state their problem, its causes, and their suggestions for correcting the problem. According to Van Nierop, petitioners “were never allowed to present their cases in person.” As a result, the petitions were often written by solicitors and agents, as they knew the proper formats.5

The petitions, of which there are thousands in Amsterdam’s municipal archives, were submitted under two circumstances: when a petition was requested for such things as a “printer asking for a license to publish a particular book”; and by individuals whose requests were related to personal matters that needed attention, such as “inheritances, bankruptcies, wardship, and other matters where property rights were involved.” Van Nierop notes that the authorities treated the peoples’ affairs “with care and scrutiny.”6 The petitions from either individuals or groups regarding a request for certain legislations affecting or adding to the laws of the city, were sent to Amsterdam’s court, consisting of the burgemeesters, schouts, and schepenen. Legislation requests were read by an appointed committee that drafted an opinion, on which, if necessary, the views of the groups involved were solicited. A draft was then made of a new law and sent to the burgemeesters by the schepenen for their approval and ultimately the bylaws were enacted on the petitions that were granted. Criminal laws, however, remained untouched by the commonalty.7

We do not know how far back in the history of the Low Countries petitioning was used. But certainly the Dutch were not strangers to the process, considering that they submitted a petition on April 5, 1566. On that day about three hundred nobles appeared before the court of Margaret of Parma in Brussels with what is called the famous Petition. The object was to have the governess, who was appointed by Philip II in 1559, suspend the Inquisition in the Netherlands which, if maintained, would “destroy all old privileges, freedoms and immunities.” They also asked Philip “to seek the advice and consent of the assembled States General for new ordinances and other more suitable and appropriate ways to put matters right.” Needless to say, he did not.8

As they knew that petitioning was an active ingredient in the governance of Holland and that all but fanciful requests were carefully attended, it is no surprise that the colonists who immigrated to New Netherland were accustomed to the idea of petitioning for a variety of conditions and complaints, or that the local courts and the colonial council responded quickly to the petitions. If the governments of Dutch Republic and its provinces were decentralized, New Netherland was just the opposite as it was firmly centralized. The director and council made all the laws and ordinances and received and distributed the laws sent from the Amsterdam



Chamber. They chartered new villages, appointed their magistrates and reviewed and approved—or not—the local ordinances that villages might make. Major criminal behaviors, such as killing and sodomy, were sent to the colonial council for handling.

Accustomed to appealing their cases to the West India Company or even the States General when they felt particularly aggrieved, the people eventually could only appeal to the director and the council by order of the Company. Unlike the local towns in Holland, the commonality had no voice in their village appointments, nor did the village magistrates have any say in the appointment of their schout. And not even the director and council members had any say in

Figure 1.2. L. F. Tantillo, A View of Fort Orange, 1652. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.



the appointment of those positions as they were appointed by the Company. However, mindful of the care of their rights and privileges, the public knew to use petitioning and, as we shall see, knew to whom and when and what to petition.

Without extant court records for the first three directors, Willem Verhulst, Pieter Minuit, and Wouter van Twiller, it is impossible to determine whether or not the small amount of early settlers of those times ever needed to petition the council. Nor is it recorded at any time whether petitioners employed the certain sized paper that Van Nierop described or whether the petitioners could not appear in person. Certainly the fact that people did appear in court with their petitions is evidence that appearance was not prohibited. Moreover, I doubt that a stamp on a petition written in Beverwyck (present-day Albany) and sent down to the council in New Amsterdam, either by an Indian courier or on one of the ships that plied the river



between the capital and the village, would have any restriction on the petition’s contents even if stamps existed in New Netherland. A look at some of the existing petitions—which would have been kept in a box, as were all records—may tell us something of the needs, concerns, and influence of the New Netherland population.9

Fortunately, the colonial council’s records and the laws and ordinances promulgated by the director and council for the period of 1638–1647 when Willem Kieft was director still survive. The Secretarial Registers for his term, which lasted until he was replaced by Petrus Stuyvesant in 1647, are full of declarations, deeds, leases, powers of attorney, wills, agreements, complaints, settlements, appointments, contracts, debts, indentures, mortgages, affidavits, but nary a petition until one appears in the council minutes for 1646. Deacon Oloff Stevensen petitioned the court for “four referees to be appointed to settle the difficulty which he has with Domine Everardus Bogardus, minister here.” As Bogardus agreed to this in writing the court appointed four referees, one of whom was the Domine Megapolensis, and “authorized and empowered them to decide and settle the aforesaid question.” In a unanimous decision, the referees “concluded” that Stevensen was not guilty and that the question between the two “shall be from now on finally settled, disposed of and extinguished without hereafter being in any way revived on either side.” Since the parties agreed to the decision of the referees, the director and council approved and affirmed the decision.10 This detailed report gives some idea of how personal petitions may have been handled in Kieft’s court.

There was, however, some difference in the petition that came to Stuyvesant’s attention soon after his ordinance establishing a board of nine men was issued in September 1647. Stuyvesant and council apparently had instructions from the Company, “to solicit the cooperation of the commonalty, as this tends mostly to their own welfare and protection and is customary in all well administered government, colonies and places”11 Actually, what the growing commonalty of New Amsterdam really wanted since Kieft’s time was the appointment of a municipal court with its own burgemeesters, schout, and schepenen to handle the city’s affairs as would have been done in Holland. What they got under Kieft were two short-lived boards, which got cancelled when they decided to point out the government’s problems. What they got under Stuyvesant was a board of nine men comprised of three each from the merchants, burghers, and farmers and a long list of rules that they were to obey—including not holding private meetings.12

In February 1648, the selectmen, which is what the board of nine men was called, petitioned the director and council on a subject not detailed in the minutes. Whatever it was, they approved of it “for the present what the selectmen propose from a sense of well meant duty and, as they claim, for the promotion of the public interest, and will take the same into further consideration and make and issue such order thereon as they shall consider to be to the public benefit and advantage.” The director and council followed with a warning to the selectmen “to keep within the bounds of their commission, to hold no meetings or assembly except with the knowledge and consent of the director, and not to draw up any propositions, much less to pass any resolutions, except in the presence of and before a deputy from the honorable council.” The petition undoubtedly offered some ideas for the government, as the final comment in the response was that in “future petitions they must observe more respect in submitting their requests, that is that they must not presume to dictate to the director and council what they ought to do.”13

The director and council continued to receive other petitions such as the burgemeester guards of the city protesting the regulation about musketry as there was a lack of guns among



the citizens so the burghers had to provide “themselves with fire arms.” Those with no guns were given some from the Company’s magazine with the understanding that they keep them in good condition. Then the crew of the Valckenier presented a petition in which they requested “permission to sell, without hinderance, their personal freight.” Stuyvesant and the council promptly agreed to the request, given the small amount of freight under consideration, but did forbid the sale of the guns, which they appropriated and planned to pay for.14

Figure 1.3. Bronze bust of Petrus Stuyvesant in the churchyard of St. Mark’s in-the-Bowery. It was sculpted by Dutch sculptor Toon Dupuis and given by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1915. Photo by Teodors Ermansons.



By February 1653, New Amsterdam finally had its municipal government, a court of burgemeester, schout, and schepen. Some of the petitions they dealt with were requests for offices, such Adriaen Dircksen Coen’s petition which asked to be “favored with the office of Carrier of Beer and wine on such orders and wages as in their Worships discretion, shall be found proper.” The magistrates put this aside to attend to “at the earliest opportunity.” The same day, Johannes Withart presented the court with his petition asking that there be an end to a suit that had been examined. The court decided to have commissioners appointed “to examine the papers and reconcile the parties.” Later in the day, the burgemeesters and schepenen petitioned Stuyvesant and the council asking that since they had been in office for a year they needed the councils’ consent to their nominating a double number for them to select a single number of burgemeesters and schepenen.15

Many of the petitions were requests for jobs, which required the court’s permission, such as tapping. Often two or more petitioners would appear before the court on the same day.

Figure 1.4. Insert of a map of Rensselaerswyck, showing the mapmaker, by Gillis van Scheyndel (1631–32). New York State Library call number 7474 (1631–1632).



For example on Monday, September 7, 1654, seven cases were dealt with in court, followed by four petitions. One requested permission to “act again as a tapster”; another petitioned to tap “half a hogshead of Brandy by the small measure”; and the written petition from the “sworn Beer and Wine Carriers” requested attention to the fact that others unloaded the wine brought in ships, which affected their business. Jacques de la Motthe, master of the bark St. Charles, submitted a petition written in French, requesting “payment of the freight and board of the Jews whom he brought here from Cape St. Anthony according to the agreement and contract in which each is bound in solidum.”16

Looking through the volumes containing municipal court minutes, several things become apparent. Unlike Holland, people in New Netherland presented the petitions in person. The petitions were not always written but more often presented verbally. Moreover, the court did not have the advantage of the Amsterdam court where “three of the nine judges” alternated “special duty for one week to read petitions and dispose of them at once if they were of

Figure 1.5. “Petition of New Netherland,” by Adriaen van der Donck, paper, 1649. Collection Nationaal Archief (National Archives of the Netherlands) 1.01.07, inv.nr. 12564.30A.



small importance.”17 Lack of time to address the petition requests may explain why some of the decisions on the petitions were delayed a day or so, and even longer when the more complicated petitions required meeting with the director general. Yet by and large, the court dealt directly and as quickly as possible. Petitions, even those simply petitioning for a minor job, were never considered too small to warrant the court’s attention. As the size of the population was miniscule compared to Amsterdam, the court hardly had the stacks of petitions that faced the Amsterdam judges.

Once the villages and towns were chartered the people could petition directly to their own court. The village of Beverwyck, which was the entrepôt of the fur trade and became the second largest town in the colony, probably had the most examples of petitioning. Chartered by Stuyvesant in 1652, the opening session of the court on April 15, 1652, dealt with two petitions. Rut Arentz petitioned to have a lot near his house, which the court referred to a committee to be appointed to look into the situation, and Harmen Bastiaensz Timmerman petitioned for permission to erect a house that he had started and which he was sure would not crowd the fort. The court gave him permission to proceed with the building.18 Many of the people in Beverwyck had been a part of the Rensselaerswyck patroonship and thus were acquainted with one another. They also had a working knowledge of the jurisprudence and were quick to utilize petitioning to serve their needs. Their requests were quite varied and ranged from the personal requests for exclusive rights, such as running a horsemill, to petitions from the fighting neighbors, the Van Hoesem and Wesslesz, who asked the court for restraining orders against each other. There were group petitions based on community concerns, such as the petition of some burghers for an ordinance to have the playing of golf on the streets stopped as it broke their windows. The profits from the fur trade were particularly important and problems concerning them led forty-five small and large fur traders, one of whom was a woman, to sign a petition that was sent to the colonial council requesting that the Manhattan merchants be forbidden to sell retail in Beverwyck during the trading season.19 The petition was granted.

Clearly, the Dutch continued the practice of petitioning in the New World with the confidence that through its use they could protect their rights and even correct personal or community problems or needs, and that the ruling powers would, indeed had to, listen to them and provide fair answers or solutions. With the takeover of the colony in 1664 by the English, the articles of surrender allowed the Dutch to keep two rights—their religion and to “enjoy their own customes, concerning their inheritance.”20 While petitioning did not make much of an appearance in the early English records of the colony, in Beverwyck, then called Albany by the English, the Dutch continued to run things in the Dutch manner, using mainly Dutch jurisprudence and keeping records in the Dutch language. They also petitioned on the usual subjects, such as for lots on the hill. The church masters presented a petition about the repairs that were needed “with the request where they are to find the money?” The court said that the windows could be repaired and that they would look further into the means for handling the rest of their request. Widow Lysbeth Brower presented a petition asking for permission to renounce the estate, and “that she may receive the same favor and mercy as other oppressed persons.” Aware of her circumstances the court granted her petition, provided she declared that she was keeping nothing from the estate. And some burghers petitioned to have the recent ordinance on selling brandy repealed; after consultation, Governor Lovelace and the magistrates decided to grant the petition as it would be in the best interest of the community.21

The use of petitions in New Netherland may not have completely followed the patterns



Figure 1.6. “Belgii Novi, Angliae Novae et Partis Virginiae,” by Johannes Janssonius, 1650. This plate was engraved in 1650 based on a 1648 manuscript map that accompanied a 1649 petition on behalf of the New Netherland Commonalty delivered by Adriaen van der Donck to the States General. It urged the Dutch Republic to negotiate with England the exact borders between New Netherland and New England. Van der Donck delivered this manuscript map to the States General in order to support Adriaen Block’s original 1614 claim to New Netherland. The presentation of this map also illustrates an exercise of a right to seek redress of grievance from the highest governmental authority. From the collection of Joep de Koning.

established in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, they did work to the advantage of the needs of the Dutch in the New World. While the Dutch records for the court of Albany, Rensselaerswyck, and Schenectady from 1668–1685 show minimal use of petitions, usage by the Dutch for granting their rights and privileges was not forgotten.



This became apparent on July 30, 1673, when during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, a Dutch squadron anchored a musket shot away from Fort James and demanded its surrender. The fort and the city surrendered to the Dutch and the new government only took four days to get established in the Dutch manner. A ship was soon sent up the Hudson to demand the surrender of Fort Albany and the villages in the Esopus area.22 In short order, the delegates from Albany and the villages of Kingston, Hurley, and Marbeltown in the Esopus area headed down the river, petitions in hand. On September 1, 1673, the magistrates from the Esopus presented their petition first. The details are not spelled out in the extant records, but the eight

Figure 1.7. L. F. Tantillo, Manhattan, 1660. Reproduction courtesy of the artist.



points were addressed by the Council of War and allowed. Then it was Fort Orange’s turn to “deliver in a writing” nine articles in their petition “for the maintenance and preservation of the rights of the Town of Beverwijck and Fort Orange.” The War Council answered by writing their decisions opposite the articles, and ended by saying that “[t]he petitioners shall enjoy the same privileges as they did in the time of the previous Dutch government.”23 And until the colony was returned to the English in the peace of Westminster on February 19, 1674 and formally surrendered to Governor Edmund Andros on November 10, 1674, they did.



NOTES

1. For an example, see the case against Juriaen Jansz who was accused of denouncing “in scandalous, villainous and contemptuous terms the ordinance against going into the woods to trade . . . and to speak of it in such a way as if the magistrates of this court were thereby trying reserve the entire trade to themselves” and ultimately making them out to be “incapable louts.” Fort Orange Court Minutes, 1652–1660, ed. and trans., Charles T. Gehring (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1990), 195.

2. Henk van Nierop. “Popular Participation in Politics in the Dutch Republic,” in Resistance, Rep-resentation, and Community, ed. Peter Blickle (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1997), 284.

3. The use of Roman-Dutch law dominated the title of Van Leeuwen’s next book, Commentaries on Roman-Dutch Law, published in 1664. See H. W. Lee, An Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 2. Lee further notes that Roman-Dutch law, while part of the law in the prov-ince of Holland, was not necessarily in other provinces of the Dutch Republic, as “the laws of no two provinces were precisely the same,” although he suggests that legal systems of the principal provinces may have had a “general resemblance” (5).

4. According to J. L. Price, the towns of Holland had considerable autonomy as well as “a wide range of administrative powers and competence,” which made it difficult for the States of Holland to act against them. J. L. Price, The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century (New York: St. Martin’s, 1998), 72.

5. Van Nierop, “Popular Participation,” 285. On the same page Van Nierop says that petitioning “gave rise to a vast professional lobbying circuit of solicitors and agents, particularly in The Hague with its many government agencies.”

6. Ibid., 286. 7. Ibid., 286–87. 8. Martin van Gelderen, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt, 1555–1590 (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1992), 110–11, 114. 9. There is a reference in the documents to a “Book of Petitions,” which has been lost along with

the “Book of Resolutions.” There are, fortunately, uncounted numbers of petitions of every sort that appear in village and municipal court records.

10. Council Minutes, 1638–1649, trans. A. J. F.van Laer (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1974), 318–20.

11. Ibid., 438.12. Ibid., 438–42.13. Ibid., 482.14. Ibid., 520, 527–28.15. Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674, ed. Berthold Fernow. 7 vols. (Baltimore: Genealogi-

cal Publishing, 1976), I: 155, 156.16. Ibid., 240.17. Van Nierop, “Popular Participation,” 284.18. Fort Orange Court Minutes, 4. The concern of Stuyvesant had been that the director of the Rens-

selaerswyck patroonship had moved their nonagricultural people across the river, where they began putting up buildings too close to the fort and on a piece of land that Stuyvesant felt they had no right to use.

19. See the New York Colonial Manuscripts at the New York State Archives, vol. 10, part 3, docs.187, 189, 191. The council resolution is in doc. 193.

20. General Entries, 1664–1673, ed. Peter R. Christoph and Florence A. Christoph (Baltimore: Genea-logical Publishing, 1982), 36.

21. Minutes of the Court of Albany, Rensselaerswyck, and Schenectady, 1668–1673, ed. and trans. A. J. F. van Laer. 3 vols. (Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1926), I: 47, 170, 247–48, 305.



22. Donald G. Shomette and Robert D. Haslach, Raid on America: The Dutch Naval Campaign of 1672–1674 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 178.

23. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, vol. 2, trans. E. B. O’Callaghan (Albany: Weed, Parson, and Company, 1858), 502–505.
